posted 10-26-200410:59 AM
Ahah, yes, that's more like what I've seen around.

Like I said, I can't vote and if I could, it wouldn't be Bush- but at the same time, as election draws nearer I'm seeing some panicky statements being made that aren't quite valid.

At the same time, stuff like the bussing systems being tampered with, or having only registered Republicans count the votes in certain counties irks me to no end- elections are crazy enough without craziness like this going on behind the scenes.

I know I've found myself doing it at home more than once lately, so while I think one can be scared and freaked out and still sane and accurate, I'm not going to be someone being too hard on people panicking right now.

Someone the other day suggested I turn on religious right stations the other day, for instance, just so I can be informed as to what is going on there better. My reponse was that I tried not to suject myself to verbal abuse, especially given some of what I grew up with, and the fact that given various aspects of myself I deal with enough still already, and often a lot of this campaign feels like pointed verbal abuse sometimes. It's pretty easy to panic when the message to some of us from Bush is very clearly and simply "I hate you," or "You need to be fixed/rehabilitated/squandered because you are wrong."

If I listen to or read the current head of my country talking about why abortion shouldn't be legal, but that at the same time, hearing him say that my sexual orientation alone makes me unacceptable to adopt, I get awfully scared and feel pretty much like walking garbage when I'm too tired to remain angry on a given night. When I see things like that Arkansas mailer, I actually do have a moment of knowing how blacks in states in the fifties and sixties may have felt -- certainly not with something as horrific and extreme as lynchings, but with the constant daily reminders and discrmination like a "whites only" sign on a water fountain.

When I hear EC or abortion being touted as terrorism by my President and know that 1) I am very vocal in my activism for the right to those things and 2) my president likes to exploit people's fear of terrorism I become nervous. When I see things like Republican groups not being held accountable in some states, including mine, for detroying voter registrations which won't give them the vote I want, I feel awfully helpless, no matter what I do actively. When I see polls from nearly every other country in the world where if they could vote, would vote RADICALLY differently than those in our country would, and data which shows people here engaging in pretty scary selective reality, I'm scared no matter WHO takes this, really.

When magazines, like The New Yorker, and newspapers who have never endorsed a candidate because their readership is their bread and butter are doing so at a great risk to their busness, it tends to make a feeling of desparation raise. Looking at polls, seeing the east and west coast firmly divided from the south smells an awful lot like civil war. I know for a fact that a given result of this election may feed a depression for me, after which I will likely have to make some choices I simply should not have to make, and making big choices in that headspace is rarely a good thing.

And of course, there are other kinds of fear than mine. The Bush campaign's biggest approach has been to barrage Americans with the idea that people everywhere else want to do us grave harm he can protect us from, even to the point of an ad which showed a pack of wolves, seemingly out there ready to get us. Now, while stuff like this doesn't sway me -- I've always been all too keenly aware of the danger WE have presented to everyone else, the harm WE have done, OUR terrorism as well as how comparatively small our safety worries are in that regard to so many other countries, as well as how much money has been put in the pockets BY this administration for the same poeple and parties we're told we're being protected from -- that does inspire very valid fear in many people, so then you get their sort of fear, my sort of fear, other people's srt of fear, all of them bouncing off of each other, etc.

I could go on, but flatly, I just wrote a pile on this elsewhere this morning, and I'm just plain tired of voicing my fears on this and so forth: it is at this point nearly all I, and most other people close to me, can think or speak about.

So, I know for myself, I'm being pretty tolerant of panic at this point, especially so close to this election. Because it is scary.

posted 10-29-200412:31 AM
Posters have said they are entitled to their opinions, and as a general rule that's true. But are people entitled to *all* opinions.

Let's take a really extreeme example so you can see where I am coming from. If someone attended a party at my house and said they were voting for the Nazi party, I'd throw them out. And I think most people would support me, as a Jew and someone who lost relatives in the Holocaust, in the right to do that. On the other hand, if they said they were voting for a mainstream party I didn't like very much but was not out to kill me I might not like the person quite as much, and maybe even would not invite them back, but it would be over the top to throw them out - that's clearly an opinion they're entitled to.

So the thing is this. We have a president who has made pretty clear that he wants many of the posters on this list to be denied equal treatment, probably to be put in jail. And what's more, he's made really clear that he is happy for anyone of them who cannot afford health insurance to die because he thinks that health cover should be restricted to the rich.

I do understand that there is a *big* difference between Bush and the Nazi party. He is not going to come out and kill people for their race or religion. It's obviously a more valid choice to go for him than some explicity racist group. But I'm not sure it's fair to say to someone who's freedom, possibly their life, is in danger from this guy to say "well I'm not only entitled to my opinion and that includes supporting someone who is trying to make life very, very hard for you, and so I'm going to express that opinion on a site you sweated blood to create."

I take the point about single issue voting. If Bush was as bad as he is on all the issues that directly concern this site, but had huge redeeming features on other issues (eg he was going to improve health care, or make millions of new jobs) then I'd understand and respect that. But exactly what are the issues where Bush is so good? Gumnut girl says she's libertarian, but this is the least libertarian government America has ever had, unless you restrict that to the liberty of the very rich not to pay taxes, or the right to own semi-automatic weapons. On about every other point Bush is about more government interference, not less.

posted 10-29-200402:40 PM
(Just FYI, perhaps "Gumnut" was a typo. Her handle is "GumDROP." If it wasn't a typo, that sort of baiting is very not okay here.)
Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by wobblyheadedjane:[B]Can you please find a citation where someone, anyone remotely connected to the Bush campaign or the GOP has said "If you do not vote for Bush, you will go to hell?"- because I haven't heard any such thing, and google sure didn't turn anything like that up.[B]

Unfortunately, I don't have the URL, and it may not exist anymore anyway, but I remember that around the time of the last US Presidential election, I found a Christian discussion board that had a thread asking "Can you be a true Christian and vote for the Democrats?" (Most people said no).

However, I do know a number of very committed evangelical Christians who do not support the Bush administration or the Republican party.

quote:Originally posted by 113533:Whenever I run into someone who is a Bush supporter, I simply ask them, "Why". Oftentimes I hear the reply of, "Because he is a strong Christian". This is something I am really bothered by.

Anyways, I just wanted to remind everyone to get out and VOTE on Nov. 2!!! Do your part, make a difference in this country, and maybe we will see a change!

In response to this I say:

Isn't electing someone based on their religion almost like choosing a person based on their gender, skin color, body weight, or other ridiculous thing that has nothing to do with leadership?

I would want my leader to have a religion (don't care which one as long as it isn't evil/satanic). I wouldn't want him to bring that into politics. Unfortunately, that is impossible because it is human nature to have bring religion (beliefs) into one's decisions. Even Kerry would do it to some extent. However, Bush is still a bible-thumper and definately needs to be replaced.

If he gets re-elected, there is a strong chance that he will be *slits wrists*, our country will be back on the road to reverting to 19th century puritan America. You can also forget any modern science.

I don't get why everyone thinks Kerry doesn't make it clear exactly what his plan is, it's on his website http://www.johnkerry.com/

I also think it's fantastic that 1 out of 7 voters this year is between 18 and 21 years old. That will surely help the democratic vote.

I think Kerry has a real shot in this election because he will more-than-likely get California (the stuff on CNN/Fox/whatever right now is not worth much and happens to be highly inaccurate).

posted 11-06-200401:39 PM
Hey Miz S, I'm sure Greenguy meant no ill. He (and probably lots of other folks) just can't wrap his head around why I choose to vote the way I do.

The important thing is, I was actually eligible to vote in the election, whereas Greenguy wasn't. So opinions aside, who actually got to cast the ballot? Me! And I did. (hey youth voting bloc, where the hell were you? did y'all strand me at the polls?)

As for politics and religion, I think a lot of us need to tune in more to what *other* people are feeling because when we stay in environments of like minds. Bush took 51% of the Catholic vote (showing a significant overlap with 42% of the Latino vote). In eleven states, there were ballot measures to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. And in all eleven of those states, the measures passed. Hell, even I was suprised by that one. Clearly, people do vote their faith.

Anyway, here's the new thing to watch: Supreme Court. Rehnquist is likely to vacate his post this year. So if there ever was a need for activism, this is it.

quote:Anyway, here's the new thing to watch: Supreme Court. Rehnquist is likely to vacate his post this year. So if there ever was a need for activism, this is it.

See, this is where I just can't wrap my mind round things. I'm not trying to attack you, I just don't get it.

You're saying "I voted this guy into office. Now, I feel there's an overwhelming need for activism to prevent him from doing the thing - installing enough Supreme Court judges to repeal Roe v. Wade - that he'd made it completely clear he was bent on doing!"

If this is such an important issue for you - and if gay rights, sex education, access to birth control, etc. etc. are in any way important to you, and I'm assuming they are, since you're here - why vote for the guy in the first place? I know you've said it's not a "single-issue" deal, but what issues were so important that they outweighed all of this (including this "if there was ever a need for activism, this is it" issue)?

I know that there have been a bunch of Republicans - including the Log Cabin Republicans - who've refrained from backing Bush, so it's not as simple as "I'm economically libertarian, therefore I vote Republican".

posted 11-06-200406:29 PM
I really like what Clare had to say, and I'd be earnestly interested in the same questions as well, especially per the "activism is needed now," issue because, really, activism isn't just reactive, much of it should be proactive, so the most effective activism against something like Rehnquist would have been/was working to prevent the known and publicized scenario in the first place. And I gotta confess, it really rubs me he wrong way and confuses me a lot to be given a message that activism is needed now more than ever when a) I've been doing it the whole time and b) when you've just informed me that you didn't do it. Can you see whay that perplexes me, and even causes me to feel a little resentful?

And hey, I'm all about what other people are feeling, even when I don't get it, or it isn't my own bag. After all, you know, let's even start by considering Scarleteen. I'm sure nothing close to a young adult. I don't have kids. I sure don't need birth control or EC for myself or my partners, unless immaculate conceptions start happening to lesbians (wow, would THAT be interesting). I'll be unlikely to ever need an abortion again.

I'm actually not in favor of gay marriage, per se: what I'm in favor of is marriage as a whole not being tied to laws, but in civil unions for everyone, and if that won't be the case, in marriage being allowable for everyone. I don't live in a city where it's likely I'll be victim of a hate crime, but regardless, if someone is assaulted due to their orientation, I want that to have as much weight as if they were for their gender or race. And I don't make minimum wage. Would that I did! I don't make 75 cents to every dollar a man makes, because I'm not even in that ballpark: but I most certainly think women who are should have equal pay. I am neither an American soldier, nor am I an Iraqi civilian, but I'm still grossly concered for both parties. I'm not likely to wind up at Guantanamo Bay, but I'm certainly concerned with the people being tortured there.

Certainly, I DO vote on some issues that are of very immediate and personal relevance to me, but for the most part, I try very hard, and always have, to think of how EVERYONE is the most beneffitted. But the assumption that I or anyone else is supporting a given candidate or voting a certain way because one isn't thinking about others is fallacious, no matter who it's applied to, unless that truly is the case.

So, I assure you, I consider quite often what other people are feeling, need or want. BUT.

There's room for inclusion from where I'm standing.

Being pro-choice means EVERYONE gets to choose whatever they wish for themselves. Asking for equal rights for EVERYONE gives EVERYONE equal rights. I don't have a problem, even, with including things like faith and prayer in government funding, even in schools but only IF that "faith" is inclusive of ALL faiths, including the lack of such, not exclusive, as it is and has been and will likely continue to be. I have plenty of room for Catholics, what have you, in the room I'm standing in, because by no means am I going to tell them who or what to pray to, what to decide for their own bodies, or that they aren't privy to the same rights I am for themselves. Heck, most of my family on both sides was and still is Irish and Roman Catholic, and for the most part, we all manage just fine.

So, when what "other people" are feeling are the profound need to afford some people right and not others, to celebrate and fund some faiths and not others, to take the choices they make for themselves and work to legally force them on me or others, especially in this country, whose constitution doesn't support those things then no, but sorry, I'm by no means going to work to make room for that.

Now, I've no doubt that there are plenty of people in the world who feel that they are voting in my best interest when they support candidates or initiavives which further these things, however, in most cases, because that also invlves them attempting to make very individual and personal choices in my stead FOR me -- like what religion I should embrace, like who I should love, like what I should do with my body, that stands truly counter to what my citizenship here is supposed to entitle me to, which is the absence of such, especially when those actions or attempted actions very truly DO endanger the rights we all should be afforded.

I have to say, early in the game, I wasn't sure about Kerry. Over time, I got to feel very good about him. And no matter what happened, when I learned that Clinton had advised Kerry to state his stance on gay marriage and unions differently just to glean votes, and he refused, that alone nearly made me weep because even WITHOUT his stating gay marriage should be federally allowed as straight marriage is, that spoke more to me about his earnestness about equal rights AND his personal ethics, regardless.

You know, I'm registered with the Green party, have been for forever. I have Democrat friends, Independent friends, Republican friends. I have friends of every possible color, nationality, age, creed, social strata and orientation. Hell, I'm almost 35 years old, and I've lived a lot of places in a lot of different scenarios. So, that may or may not be the norm, but the point is that even being around plenty of people whot think differently than I do, when it comes to inclusion, when it comes to political issues in this country which are truly supposed to be a given, I'm unlikely to budge or to compromise because I feel very strongly that those are things we ALL pay for dearly by compromising, even if we're personally unaffected, or only indirectly affected.

(Interestingly, today my training partner -- a staunch Haitian-immigrant Republican, who voted Bush -- and I sat out on my stoop for a while after boxing, talking as we often do. He did vote Bush, but was very conflicted about it due to things like women's and GLBT issues, and we talked about that, about my voting outside my party and why, about the fact that I most certainly could see myself supporting a Republican candidate at some point because say, if Colin Powell ever ran, and the other candidates offered didn't stack up, I'd likely vote for him, for numerous reasons. He then suggested we write a joint letter to the President, to make clear that people like he and I can get along famously, can find ways to mesh our interests and values -- can fully and inclusively respect one another -- and make them work and that people like Bush and Co. need to start trying to do the same.)

posted 11-06-200408:41 PM
Ever notice how a lot of people these days tend to like Bush because of his prominent faith in God (a Christian God)? Many people I have talked to support him because his faith is such an important part of his morals, governing, and life.

Now imagine this: what if we had a devout Muslim in the oval office? What if that president was so religious; and they lived, made decisions, and governed in ways strongly influenced by their religion? I'm guessing most of the American people wouldn't stand for that. They wouldn't want someone who wasn't Christian, the most popular religion in the US. The people might say, "Hey, stop forcing YOUR religion on us!"

Just because Christianity is a major religion in the US, doesn't mean that everyone is a devout Christian. Something like banning gay marriage or decreasing sex ed has a blatantly Christian reason behind it.

Here's a fun fact: The "one nation under God" part of the pledge was added in the 50's because people wanted our nation to be a moral Christian one? And, if my sources are correct, (though this doesn't really go along with the topic, just a fun fact) Nazi Germany was the only other country to have a pledge of allegiance.

(Incidentially, I've never said the pledge myself. After a comincal but too-lengthy-to-be-told-here stint, my father wrote it out for me when I was a kid and let me read it, explaining why I may or may not want to say it, and let me know I didn't ever have to if I didn't want, and my teachers through schools where it was said -- though it wasn't in many -- were very respectful of that, though there have been situations -- like at a school I taught at, and at baseball games -- where not saying the pledge or singng the Star Spangled Banner was an issue. Point is, while I don't like aspects of it, and choose not to say it, I know that personally, I've hardly ever been punished for not doing so.

Anecdotally as well, I have a friend whose hearing was apparently not so hot, and could never figure out who the heck Richard Stans was and why he got the Republic. "And to the Republic, for Richard Stans...")

Might also want to watch how you're using the broad term "Christian" and the word "blatant." Plenty of Christians, even entire denominations, and most scripture very much does NOT support those things.

posted 12-04-200401:30 PM
hmmm what an interesting post. although i didn't read all the links.... another time. got me thinking though.

is it a question of how people who are tolerant can protect and promote tolerance to intolerant people without forcing it on them and therefore becoming intolerant themselves? can you fight for tolerance --- even Gandhi put aside his pacificism in WW2 to fight against the intolerance of Nazism.

and yet should one even do that? is there a case for people also to claim the right to be intolerant?

a bit tricky --- should one try to point out all the advantages of being tolerant and therefore hope to persuade people it is in their interests. but perhaps the world needs intolerant people as much as tolerant ones and maybe in the grand scheme its just a constant reaction to keep a balance... too liberal react too illiberal react liberal again right through history. maybe it's all an irrelevance and we're looking for answers to the wrong questions in the first place.

(i think if i remember right socrates said something along the same lines about altruism ie that although the selfish person will always rise to prominence in an altruistic society - a selfish society is an unbearable/unworkable one whereas an altruistic one is much more pleasant so at the expense of a little injustice the majority are happy to be altruistic and let the odd selfish person flourish because it works in their favor in the grand scheme of things if against them on a more localised viewpoint. of course in that scenario the selfish person just lucks out but he probably has no friends and will come back as a beetle so.....)

benefits of being tolerant/intolerant hmmmm i don't know --- it comes down to your character i guess.

my brother-in-law gets incredibly easily irritated by people - hippies, for example, annoy and offend him despite having no discernible impact on his life they do anyway because their mere existence pisses him off and upsets him - ridiculous but no less true for that.

oh well, even though i'm not religious in the end maybe no matter what people do to you... the point is to love god and having faith (or enlightenment to put it another way) is the ultimate gift. price above rubies to which nothing material can compare.

i never used to understand the Job story in the Bible but now I think it is my favorite that and the Prodigal Son both of which confused me as a child --- i thought the Job story just was mean and he was merely a victim of God's pride and the Prodigal Son just horribly unfair!!!!! how one's perception changes... amazing.

religion is just tricky - period. because even Bush professes to be a Christian (what about that 'thou shalt not kill' commandment --- i don't remember it having a little asterisk saying unless you are governor of texas and like frying people for a hobby anywhere).

has this just become a random stream of consciousness. what was the question again oh yeah --- how to persuade intolerant people to become tolerant rather than them forcing you to become intolerant yourself. mmmm no idea - perhaps we'll all just have to turn the other cheek.

posted 12-04-200410:34 PM
If I were to have "Replied with a quote" to that, I would have copied the whole thing.

I really relate to the way you're thinking. It's like an endless cycle in which it seems like there really isn't an answer to these things. You try to solve it one way, thus realizing your just imitating what you are trying to solve.

(Being intolerant of those who are intolerant? - but then you have made an exception, it's okay to be intolerant of that - but then you've just discovered something to have against someone, which is a trait you've adapted to yourself.) I see what you're saying. Heh heh.

posted 12-07-200406:41 PM
hello banddryad - thanks for that!!!! i don't know what is going on with me at the moment i think i might finally be going through my adolescence (i matured super-late physically, around 18) so maybe it is possible. but everything i think is changing radically every five minutes... and i just don't even want to talk to my mother at all although i love her dearly i get so completely fed up in five minutes of being on the phone i want to scream. i so want to break away from everyone (and then again i don't!!) -although i find my father easier now and that was NEVER the case when i was growing up. at least i am going to be in Japan for Christmas - that solves that problem. i never had an adolescence as far as i know - i pretty much stayed the same from 5years old to 21... so maybe finally i am going through what most people experience at fourteen --- finally gonna make it to an adult.but at the moment the only person who makes any sense at all to me is shakespeare (and he's dead - and hope that doesn't sound ridiculous and pretentious because i mean it straight up). i love being older but everything is weird maybe had i gone to school and not straight into work it would have been different i could study more and learn more about life with a bit of guidance instead of the auto-didactic mess that i am currently in... but i was so pleased to get out of academic study by the end of high-school there was no way i could face any sort of further education. do you reckon it is possible to have an adolescence aged 22??????? isn't that just waaaay too old? cos if it's not that i don't have the first clue what is going on with me - i don't mind it but i don't understand it either.... and if there's one thing in life i hate it's when i don't understand.
Posts: 139 | From: los angeles | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |

Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.